---- From Peter Suber's Open Access News http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2006_12_10_fosblogarchive.html#116568265051590811 The American Institute of Physics (AIP) http://www.aip.org/ has issued a statement spelling out the AIP Position On Open Access & Public Access. See the Fall 2006 issue of Professional Scholarly Publishing Bulletin, p. 3. The statement is dated October 2006. http://www.pspcentral.org/bulletins/current_bulletin.pdf AIP's mission and policy is to achieve that widest dissemination of the research results and other information we publish. * Since the arrival of the Web, AIP believes it has achieved wider and * more affordable dissemination than ever before in history, with more * subscribers, more readers and more libraries and other institutions and * people using our journals than ever before. Some use them free or at * very low cost under various open access models. * AIP believes it has been extremely successful in using and investing in * technology and new online platforms towards that end. * AIP has instituted and experimented with many business models, * including free and open access. AIP believes that publishers should be free to experiment with various business models in the market place of ideas and economics. * AIP is fearful of and against government mandates that provides rules * in favor of one business model over another. * AIP is against funding agencies mandating free access to articles after * they have undergone costly peer review or editing by publishers. AIP is against the government posting or distributing free copies of articles that publishers have invested in producing. * AIP believes that funding agencies have every right to report their * results to the public, but that if they choose to use * publisher-produced, peer-reviewed material to do that, then the * publisher should receive appropriate compensation. * AIP is also fearful about what government agencies might do with * articles they receive under any deposit system. In particular, AIP is * fearful of mission creep with government agencies using the deposited * material beyond the goal of public access, for example in enhanced * publications that compete with the private sector. ---- Peter Suber: The same issue of the PSP Bulletin (pp. 4, 8) reprints the September 22 letter from 10 provosts to Senators Cornyn and Lieberman, opposing FRPAA. See my September 22 comments on the letter. Peter Suber Comment. No doubt peer review is added value. It may be added by unpaid editors and referees, but there are transaction costs and they are paid by publishers. But government OA mandates only apply to research funded by taxpayers. Since both publishers and taxpayers make a contribution to the value of peer-reviewed articles based on publicly-funded research, what's the best way to split this baby? The current method is a reasonable compromise: a period of exclusivity for the publisher followed by free online access for the public. More, even after the embargo period ends, the existing policies and proposals only mandate access only to the author's peer-reviewed manuscript, not to the published edition. Publishers who want to block OA mandates per se, rather than just negotiate the embargo period, are saying that they want no compromise, that the public should get nothing for its investment, and that publishers should control access to research conducted by others, written up by others, and funded by taxpayers. http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2006_12_10_fosblogarchive.html#116568265051590811Received on Sun Dec 10 2006 - 20:00:16 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:48:39 GMT